Size of the map Combat Sim

[Shez]

@Shez: You're absolutely right, but those are system modelling/ AI modelling issues, a different branch then texture modelling issues. ;)

 

Great! Big maps with the same issues then? :)

[Snoopy]

I wasn't going to bother as I consider it rather pointless when people have their own fixed ideas based on their play style alone, but, to expand on the list above.......

 

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Eddie again."

 

Perfect post, I agree 110% with everything said and listed!!!!!!!

[Grimes]

But I do think that some people underestimate the value of using lower detail to "flesh out" the theatres and create more options. At least until we can, one day, have truly massive theatres of operation in high detail.

 

Thats a bingo. I've long agreed with the idea of having far off airbases that are solely there to provide an "off map" launching place for aircraft. I can't remember the last time I played a mission that took place west of Anapa, which is still very strange to me because that area was the center of the LockOn map and it was hard to find a mission that didn't involve crossing that area. Yes we can use airspawns, but that seems to be a very unpopular approach for anything but singleplayer missions. There is simply no reason to have anything take place over there. The same goes for every other airbase thats located close to the edge of the map. It might be a narrow minded approach, but I like to picture the "usable area" of a map by just drawing lines between airbases and give a good 30-50km buffer on either side of the line. Anywhere that is in that area, it makes sense to build a mission for.

 

I think Nevada has a lot of cool things that are right for this sort of approach. Primarily the satellite textures going well off the populated area of the map and slowly degrading in quality instead of the abrupt edges of the map that exist on the Black Sea. Yet all of the airbases are clumped into a relatively small area on Nevada so we can't take advantage of that fact. Unless you use airspawns, a dogfight is never going to erupt over the Grand Canyon through normal MP gameplay, and that is kind of a tragedy.

[chromium]

+1 about grimes as an helo pilot. To me Navada has been a huge leap forward, even if my VS don't use that due to lack of op capability (with the current layout).

 

Imho the operation area could absolutely be whithin a 300x300 km area. but if this area could be sorrounded in a 2000x2000 km area with few perfectly made military airport (3,4?) and a very small mesh area with no additional 3D object, could be ideal solution for both currently employed aircrafts (Jet, SlowJet and Helos).

[Eddie]

Thats a bingo. I've long agreed with the idea of having far off airbases that are solely there to provide an "off map" launching place for aircraft.

 

Indeed, that alone would greatly increase options available when building scenarios, even if you only used such airfields for the AI.

 

One of the things that has always niggled me in DCS is that there is nowhere in the Black Sea theatre where NATO aircraft would be operated from in any kind of realistic scenario involving a conflict in that area. "Simply" adding an airbase or two in Turkey would create that option, and many other options. The same goes for the Crimea of course.

[Aginor]

Absolutely!

[dooom]

I wasn't going to bother as I consider it rather pointless when people have their own fixed ideas based on their play style alone, but, to expand on the list above. Not exhaustive by any means, and I've left out much of the small scale TTP based details that would require a lot of explanation, but still a reasonable starter for 10.

 

• Realistic length and distance of missions for both sides within a realistic tactical scenario including a realistic air & surface OOB
  
• Navigational challenges, both tactical and non-tactical for both sides within a realistic tactical scenario including a realistic air & surface OOB
  
• Long distance flights instead of going back and forth between Anapa and Tblisi all the time.
  
• And last but not least, it would give the player a much bigger feel of freedom and possibilities.
  
• Space to create a scenario with a realistic ground based air defence network utilizing a correct NATO/WARPAC OOB IAW current or past doctrine.
  
• As above for airborne elements of the IADS.
  
• Space to include realistically configured tanker tracks or proper length and quanitity
  
• As above for AWACS and other ISTAR assets .
  
• Large enough area to allow for basing of aircraft at doctrine appropriate distances from hostile airspace/FEBA as applicable.
  
• Enough space to permit all of the above and have a mobile FEBA over a period of time that is in keeping with both historical and expected theoretical future scenarios (i.e. weeks > months).
  
• Enough space to have all of the above, and be able to use the same physical theatre to create multiple scenarios over time, which have a significant enough of a difference to give the feel of an entirely different play experience and therefore increase game longevity.
  

 

The key here is not the individual elements from a pure single aircraft in isolation aspect, but rather as a part of a coherent and realistic scenario. Yes some of it can be forced into the Black Sea area, but it really is forced, trust me I've been doing it for quite a few years now. For those who aren't that bothered about the "realistic" element and find suspending disbelief either easy or unnecessary I'm sure the current state of affairs is quite pleasing, but such players aren't representative of all.

 

All of this isn't to imply that what we have now is somehow pointless or invaluable, but rather it's a view held by many and also a hope for the future. Do doubt having all of this represents some serious technical, and logistical, challenges. But it is still a very worthy goal in my eyes.

 

Personally I think that the Nevada theatre is a very significant step forward, certainly technologically, even if I don't particularly agree with or understand some of the way it has been implemented. And I don't think anyone would suggest that the level of detail in the "high detail" areas isn't very impressive and immersive. But I do think that some people underestimate the value of using lower detail to "flesh out" the theatres and create more options. At least until we can, one day, have truly massive theatres of operation in high detail.

 

Just because many are quite happy with the current state of terrain, or even the past state, doesn't mean that those who aren't should be shouted down at every given opportunity. Nor does it mean that those people don't appreciate what we have now, or the technological challenges that stand in the way of what we desire. This isn't a competition, or an argument to be won, although I get the impression that some around here are trying to treat it as such.

 

The key thing is, that nothing being suggested would take away from anyone's experience, but it would add greatly to the experience of others.

 

Would the addition of Istanbul / Istanbul Samandıra Army Air Base in the far southwest of our current map as a hi detail area open all this up to you??